Britain to ban new fossil fuel vehicles by 2040

Great Britain will ban all new diesel and gasoline-powered automobiles after 2040. In an announcement on 26 July, Environment Secretary Michael Gove confirmed that vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels will no longer be allowed to be sold by then in Britain, and will instead be replaced by electric vehicles (EVs), writes Gregory Brew of Oilprice.com. Courtesy Oilprice.com. (This is the second article in a short three-part series on EVs that we will publish today and tomorrow.)

The announcement comes after the British High Court ruled further action was necessary to improve the quality of Britain’s air. The Conservative government had previously lobbied against taking such action but were overruled by the court in November 2016.

The British announcement comes only a few weeks after France declared a similar goal. As part of its commitment to the Paris climate accord, the government of Emmanuel Macron wants to allow only electric vehicles on French roads after 2040. Both countries are responding in part to tough European Union emissions rules, which affect Britain despite that country’s decision to leave the EU.

To prepare for the adjustment, Britain plans to invest £800 million in driverless and zero-emission technology, as well as £246 million in improved batteries, according to Bloomberg. Market trends indicate that by 2040 almost 80 percent of all new auto sales in the UK will be of electric vehicles, though it will take decades for gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to vanish from British streets entirely.

It’s a trend sweeping across Europe, where electric cars are becoming increasingly popular as governments undertake more aggressive policies to combat climate change and reduce emissions. Norway, which already has the highest percentage of electric vehicles in the world, has instituted a similar policy, though it wants to eliminate gasoline and diesel car sales by 2025. Some federal states of Germany, which has yet to adopt a national policy, want to phase-out traditional vehicles by 2030.

Further pressure

The British news will put further pressure on major carmakers to step up their development of electric vehicles. Some manufacturers have already begun taking steps to prepare.

Volvo Car Group announced recently that by 2019 it will manufacture only electric vehicles. The Swedish company has plans to put 1 million EVs on the streets by 2025.

The German government, which has adopted a progressive line on a number of energy and emissions-related issues, has been reticent to take too strong a line

French car makers like Peugeot, Citroën and Renault-Nissan are all enthusiastic proponents of EV technology and have embraced the production of electric vehicles. France already relies on nuclear power for 80 percent of its electricity, so cutting emissions from automobiles would have a huge impact on the country’s overall emissions output, helping it reach the goals set by the Paris climate accord. Renault-Nissan, a French-Japanese carmaker, has been particularly keen on seizing EV market share, accounting for 425,000 out of 2 million EVs sold worldwide.

German automakers have also embraced EV, with BMW challenging Tesla, the world’s foremost innovator in EV technology, by announcing plans to electrify all its car brands. BMW believes electric vehicles will account for 15-25 percent of its sales by 2025. Volkswagen, the world’s largest car manufacturer, has plans to undercut Tesla’s competitive Model 3: the German carmaker wants to market its own EV for $7000 less than the Tesla option.

Germany, the world’s largest auto manufacturer, has been wary of the EV trend as it could affect a huge industry and impact thousands of jobs. The German government, which has adopted a progressive line on a number of energy and emissions-related issues, has been reticent to take too strong a line, with German chancellor Angela Merkel warning against “demonizing” diesel engines in response to Britain’s announced ban on diesel cars after 2040.

Not here yet

The EV boom, while much anticipated, definitely isn’t here yet. Electric vehicles made up a tiny fraction of the world auto market in 2015, accounting for just over 1 percent of global sales. Even in Europe, only 0.6 percent of new car registrations were for purely electric vehicles, while in France the figure was 1.1 percent. The IEA has pointed out, however, that this represents a phenomenal growth from 2005, when sales of EVs were measured in hundreds.

A stumbling block could be access to lithium … If EV demand spikes by as much as some advocates and market watchers suggest, lithium mining might have problems scaling up to meet demand

Optimists and EV advocates point to plummeting battery costs, improving technology, superior brands (EVs have, after decades of failed attempts, become “cool”) and supportive government policies as signs that the EV boom will be bigger than expected.

But a stumbling block could be access to lithium, the mineral needed to manufacture EV batteries. If EV demand spikes by as much as some advocates and market watchers suggest, lithium mining might have problems scaling up to meet demand.

And while advocates of EV point to the improvements widespread adoptions of EV could bring to emissions levels, it deserves mentioning that lithium mining is an expensive, time-consuming process that can be as environmentally damaging as oil production. Should demand for EVs become as aggressive as anticipated, lithium supply could have problems keeping up, and if it does it could pose an entirely new environmental challenge.

Good to place car makers on notice so they develop competitively priced EVs in time. However, building the required nuke/renewables generating capacity is a bigger challenge by far. Also it’s not clear yet whether the ban would prevent the sale of hybrids which many prefer to battery only EVs.

Solar is not up to the job in northern Europe and offshore wind capacity is not inexpensive here too I assure you.

There is no sign of overbuilding wind and solar here either. Producing goods without a market for them is a sure fire loss making venture – unless subsidised and that thankfully will soon be over for renewables.

Bob, we’ve been here before on the exceptionally low prices bid for German offshore wind – in shore waters, transmission already laid on at zero cost and sites fully permitted. Not a benchmark for deep water offshore wind costs in North Sea.

Brexit will open up the UK more to the world than close us off. E.g. direct trading ties with you guys – not via Brussels, and importantly with the developing nations of the far east.

Liberal types in the UK wanted to stay under Brussels control. Whereas I believe California is the reverse – liberals would like to be free of Republican controlled Washington if they could.

German offshore wind farms- those with zero subsidies, are no way close to the shore.
And brexit will cancle around 750 free trade and similar treatys with foreign countries as well. Srely some of them with the US. So negotiating free trade contracts with the S will have to start from scratch after brexit, from much lower level as negotiations for TTIP started. And with a very weak negotiating position for UK. So what will be the result? All UK market open for US products, but all US market closed for UK product, similar to the “treatys” K had with india during colonism, just the other way round for UK? Common sense seems to be a rare good these days in UK, as I learn from these statements.

UK’s position is very strong. History shows we are well equipped to deal with adverse circumstances and we will not be bullied. The 5th strongest economy in the world will simple walk away from paying billions to the EU mafia if needed.
The benefits of leaving far outweigh any worries. Long term the EU is a sinking ship with other large countries likely to leave too once voters get a chance to pull out.
There is no other free trade group anywhere that requires free movement of people and open borders which are proving a disaster for Europe.
The Euro only benefits German exports by keeping exchange rates low while impoverishing countries like Greece and placing Italy in a permanent recession.

There is no other country willing to follow the british desaster.
I respect the ability of the K people to go threw hard times without complaining. But to go into hard time without the possibility to achiev some benefit is stupidity.
The possibility of UK to get better trade treaties with other nations that the existing ones is about zero. The UK Market – as well as the french, italian, german market, in itself is too small to bully a other nation into a treaty which gives the other side more benefit thant eh EU already gets. Nt havin g access to the UK market is just slightly more important than weather a sack of rice drops in china or not.
A fact of which other european small and medium sized nations are very aware, beside UK.
And sending the royal navy when other nations don’t accept trade treaties on UK’s conditions will not work any more. On the other hand, not having (open) access to the big markets like USA, China , also EU India, japan to some degree is crucial for UK economy. So UK will have to offer very favorable conditions to other states for access to UK market, and accept all conditions other states have for access to their market to get treaties fast. A very weak position. Especially in times of rising nationalism in many places.
I wish the people in UK all the best, be it with or without brexit. I will neither suffer thedisadvantages of brexit, nor benefit if some unexpected advantages show up. I just wonder from outside how people can be so stupid.
When I look at the regulations of the EU, what freedome it leaves to the national gouvenments to implement it, on one side, what other nations made of this on the second side, and what UK government produced of it, my personal choice would have been to remain in EU but to leave westminster. But you are free to decide for something else. And I hope you will not regret your choices in the future. Maybe gouvernment in London will improve again, when they can not blame all nonsense they produce on bruxelles. That would be a real advantage of brexit.

German carmakers and consumer goods makers are desperate to not have barriers to the UK for their quality but pricey goods. French farmers too selling wine and farm products.
The City of London was the financial capital of the world prior to 1973, is now and that will not change in future. Internationally mobile City workers are not interested in moving to second rate places like Paris and Frankfurt. Indeed UK based banks will use Dublin as an EU proxy if needed. The south east is home to 300,000 elite French nationals who are not interested in returning to France other than for holidays.
If the EU had not been so thick skulled over open borders and freedom of movement the UK might not be leaving. UK infrastructure and public services are creaking under the load imposed by 5m incomers. Many are from low wage eastern Europe and take low skilled jobs, depressing wages and making it difficult for Brits to get jobs in the provinces and north of England. This being a key reason for Brexit. Growing interference from the ECJ beyond matters of trade too that a sovereign country should decide.
A European super state is a daft idea that will end in tears based on the unaccountable EU.

I don’t know why the UK thinks it will be in a better trading position. It’s making itself a smaller market rather than part of a very large market. A secondary thought. Most effort will go into trade deals with the largest markets – China and Europe. The UK is not a source of any specialized or highly needed commodity/skill and is a minor consumer of goods and services compared to the big boys.

We’re already seeing financial services starting to migrate to Europe. Even UK banks are moving some of their operations to Europe. Europeans aren’t going to travel outside the EU to do the economic business of the EU.

The EU will have about 675 million people without the UK. The UK will have about 66 million. The EU will be a market 10 times that of the UK.

Countries like the US will, obviously, put the most effort into trade deals with the largest markets. Smaller markets like the UK will get less thought.

I understand that there is some dissatisfaction with Brussels, but let’s be honest. Pulling out of the EU was all about racism.

Yes so unsubsidised wind and solar should compete against subsidied caol, gas and nuclear pweor in UK, according to your opinion as I understand it.
From the recent auctions in Danmark I see that unsubsidised solar would be competitive at around 5ct/kWh wholesale price, tendency falling. Which means pefore building new coal, gas or nuclear capacity, utilities would first look at new solar and gas capacity, og grid connections as lower cost options. Which means the long time market trend will remove thermal power generation from the market, but not at the neccesary speed to bring down emissions. To get the neccesary speed fuel prices of thermal generation are the next target. Which already works at some regions in the world.

Thank you but the UK is not looking to Germany for advice on reducing carbon emissions at around 900Mt/year compared to the UK at around 500Mt/year. UK emissions continue to fall, whereas Germany’s are now static showing that the renewables adventure is grinding to a halt in terms of lowering carbon emissions.

UK is virtually free of coal too and gas fired stations are not subsidised. Best not mention Germany’s lignite problem.

Solar in northern Europe at 10% c.f . is definitely not viable at scale to replace firm generating capacity. New gas capacity will be built for sure running high CFs at first but then moving to fill in for offshore wind lulls.